@ida_aud
Forum Replies Created
- Replies
-
-
- December 30, 2016 at 4:39 pm
Pierre Triozzi at Wake Forest Baptist – knowledgeable, thorough and great bedside manner. WFB Cancer Center is apparently the only one in the state that is considered fully a Comprehensive Cancer Center, which, given we also have Duke and UNC, I was surprised to hear from my Melanoma surgeon.
Best of luck!
-
- December 30, 2016 at 4:39 pm
Pierre Triozzi at Wake Forest Baptist – knowledgeable, thorough and great bedside manner. WFB Cancer Center is apparently the only one in the state that is considered fully a Comprehensive Cancer Center, which, given we also have Duke and UNC, I was surprised to hear from my Melanoma surgeon.
Best of luck!
-
- December 30, 2016 at 4:39 pm
Pierre Triozzi at Wake Forest Baptist – knowledgeable, thorough and great bedside manner. WFB Cancer Center is apparently the only one in the state that is considered fully a Comprehensive Cancer Center, which, given we also have Duke and UNC, I was surprised to hear from my Melanoma surgeon.
Best of luck!
-
- December 30, 2016 at 4:16 pm
I'm 33 yrs old and I was diagnosed this past August with 2 primaries, which I both found at the same time, in my lower calf, 2 inches away from each other. Both 1A, 0.65 mm and 0.15 mm, no mitosis, no ulceration or anything else worrisome. Had WLE, with clear margins.
I'm lucky to have great insurance so I went ahead and saw a MEL oncologist given the close distance and simultaneous diagnoses of the two (eventhough they were 1a), but mostly for my piece of mind. I was even willing to pay out of pocket to see the mel specialist even if I didn't get insurance to cover it. Slides were read by two different dermapathologist and the 2nd reading put the depth of one of them at 0.5mm instead of 0.65 mm and they were classified as spitzoid mels, which have a better diagnoses overall than regular mel.
I've had 2 more atypical spitzoids removed since, with clear margins, but no more mels. I have a lot of moles so I get regular check ups every 3 months or more if I see anything suspicious. I use apps and pics to keep track of any changes or new moles.
I was told by my derm, my oncologist and my melanoma surgeon that 2 primaries at the same time are rare, but I guess it happens. I've done extensive research and found the same 4-8% chance of this, and I'm one of them.
I worried a lot in the beginning as well but after the first month or two, you do your research, you see your doctors and you keep an eye on your moles and things get much better. This site and others similar to this are great. Be your own advocate, be assertive and tell your doctors what you need done, at times even for just your peace of mind; it has worked wonders for me.
Let it be known that I was the one to find my melanomas eventhough I was seeing a derm on a regular bases for another skin condition. No doctor knows or cares about your body/life more than you. Go out there and kick butt!
I hope you never have to deal with another mel again.
-
- December 30, 2016 at 4:16 pm
I'm 33 yrs old and I was diagnosed this past August with 2 primaries, which I both found at the same time, in my lower calf, 2 inches away from each other. Both 1A, 0.65 mm and 0.15 mm, no mitosis, no ulceration or anything else worrisome. Had WLE, with clear margins.
I'm lucky to have great insurance so I went ahead and saw a MEL oncologist given the close distance and simultaneous diagnoses of the two (eventhough they were 1a), but mostly for my piece of mind. I was even willing to pay out of pocket to see the mel specialist even if I didn't get insurance to cover it. Slides were read by two different dermapathologist and the 2nd reading put the depth of one of them at 0.5mm instead of 0.65 mm and they were classified as spitzoid mels, which have a better diagnoses overall than regular mel.
I've had 2 more atypical spitzoids removed since, with clear margins, but no more mels. I have a lot of moles so I get regular check ups every 3 months or more if I see anything suspicious. I use apps and pics to keep track of any changes or new moles.
I was told by my derm, my oncologist and my melanoma surgeon that 2 primaries at the same time are rare, but I guess it happens. I've done extensive research and found the same 4-8% chance of this, and I'm one of them.
I worried a lot in the beginning as well but after the first month or two, you do your research, you see your doctors and you keep an eye on your moles and things get much better. This site and others similar to this are great. Be your own advocate, be assertive and tell your doctors what you need done, at times even for just your peace of mind; it has worked wonders for me.
Let it be known that I was the one to find my melanomas eventhough I was seeing a derm on a regular bases for another skin condition. No doctor knows or cares about your body/life more than you. Go out there and kick butt!
I hope you never have to deal with another mel again.
-
- December 30, 2016 at 4:16 pm
I'm 33 yrs old and I was diagnosed this past August with 2 primaries, which I both found at the same time, in my lower calf, 2 inches away from each other. Both 1A, 0.65 mm and 0.15 mm, no mitosis, no ulceration or anything else worrisome. Had WLE, with clear margins.
I'm lucky to have great insurance so I went ahead and saw a MEL oncologist given the close distance and simultaneous diagnoses of the two (eventhough they were 1a), but mostly for my piece of mind. I was even willing to pay out of pocket to see the mel specialist even if I didn't get insurance to cover it. Slides were read by two different dermapathologist and the 2nd reading put the depth of one of them at 0.5mm instead of 0.65 mm and they were classified as spitzoid mels, which have a better diagnoses overall than regular mel.
I've had 2 more atypical spitzoids removed since, with clear margins, but no more mels. I have a lot of moles so I get regular check ups every 3 months or more if I see anything suspicious. I use apps and pics to keep track of any changes or new moles.
I was told by my derm, my oncologist and my melanoma surgeon that 2 primaries at the same time are rare, but I guess it happens. I've done extensive research and found the same 4-8% chance of this, and I'm one of them.
I worried a lot in the beginning as well but after the first month or two, you do your research, you see your doctors and you keep an eye on your moles and things get much better. This site and others similar to this are great. Be your own advocate, be assertive and tell your doctors what you need done, at times even for just your peace of mind; it has worked wonders for me.
Let it be known that I was the one to find my melanomas eventhough I was seeing a derm on a regular bases for another skin condition. No doctor knows or cares about your body/life more than you. Go out there and kick butt!
I hope you never have to deal with another mel again.
-
- August 27, 2016 at 12:23 am
P.S. This report is the initial report on the two moles that were first biopsied. I don't have a copy of the report of the wide excision but they called me to ket me know that the margins are clear i.e – the excision of both moles was complete and successful. I'm going back to the surgeon in a 4 days for stitches to be removed. I have a 3.2 inch incision as the surgeon removed the whole chunk of skin around both moles (not individual incision for safer measures). I'm hoping the 2nd pathology report can say more on the diagnosis. But I doubt it. I think the goal of the 2nd pathology is to make sure there was a complete excision of both moles.
Let me know if you have any other input, please. Thank you lots!
-
- August 27, 2016 at 12:23 am
P.S. This report is the initial report on the two moles that were first biopsied. I don't have a copy of the report of the wide excision but they called me to ket me know that the margins are clear i.e – the excision of both moles was complete and successful. I'm going back to the surgeon in a 4 days for stitches to be removed. I have a 3.2 inch incision as the surgeon removed the whole chunk of skin around both moles (not individual incision for safer measures). I'm hoping the 2nd pathology report can say more on the diagnosis. But I doubt it. I think the goal of the 2nd pathology is to make sure there was a complete excision of both moles.
Let me know if you have any other input, please. Thank you lots!
-
- August 27, 2016 at 12:23 am
P.S. This report is the initial report on the two moles that were first biopsied. I don't have a copy of the report of the wide excision but they called me to ket me know that the margins are clear i.e – the excision of both moles was complete and successful. I'm going back to the surgeon in a 4 days for stitches to be removed. I have a 3.2 inch incision as the surgeon removed the whole chunk of skin around both moles (not individual incision for safer measures). I'm hoping the 2nd pathology report can say more on the diagnosis. But I doubt it. I think the goal of the 2nd pathology is to make sure there was a complete excision of both moles.
Let me know if you have any other input, please. Thank you lots!
-
- August 27, 2016 at 12:11 am
Hi,
Thank you for your invaluable input. I picked up the report and read the pathology comment and the word "metastasis" got me worried. Neither the dermatologist nor the surgeon mentioned it or in any way thoroughly discussed the report with me. I'm an audiologist and the inquisitive mind of someone working in health care 8 hrs out of the day made me aware of how one needs to be thorough with anything health related, especially with something of this magnitude.
I Will set up an appointment with a true melanoma specialist, of whom there's 3 in my state, fortunately.
As for your question on the "absence of the deep margin" – I reported the report on here verbatim. I also questioned if "absent" meant there were no margins left or there were none because of the initial shaving for biopsi (I assume none left because this was in regards to the thinnest melanoma. 0.15 mm). However, the report also stated: lymphovascular invasion: absent – which being that they just had a sample of the mole I'm not sure how they can conclude lack of lymphovascular invasion- which makes me think that by "absent" in this report they refer to lack of sample rather than lack of the invasion. So, in short I'm not sure what they mean by absent in this report.
The pathologist that signed off on this report is in fact a dermapathologist. He states that his suspicion is synchronous primaries but also that local epidermotropic metastasis can be a clinical correlation. I'm baffled that both the dermatologist and the surgeon either ignored or failed to give the proper attention to this alternative – especially since it's clearly spelled out in the report.
Thank you again for your detailed and thorough response. You just made me take a new path on this and I can't possibly thank you enough for it. I have immense gratitude.
-
- August 27, 2016 at 12:11 am
Hi,
Thank you for your invaluable input. I picked up the report and read the pathology comment and the word "metastasis" got me worried. Neither the dermatologist nor the surgeon mentioned it or in any way thoroughly discussed the report with me. I'm an audiologist and the inquisitive mind of someone working in health care 8 hrs out of the day made me aware of how one needs to be thorough with anything health related, especially with something of this magnitude.
I Will set up an appointment with a true melanoma specialist, of whom there's 3 in my state, fortunately.
As for your question on the "absence of the deep margin" – I reported the report on here verbatim. I also questioned if "absent" meant there were no margins left or there were none because of the initial shaving for biopsi (I assume none left because this was in regards to the thinnest melanoma. 0.15 mm). However, the report also stated: lymphovascular invasion: absent – which being that they just had a sample of the mole I'm not sure how they can conclude lack of lymphovascular invasion- which makes me think that by "absent" in this report they refer to lack of sample rather than lack of the invasion. So, in short I'm not sure what they mean by absent in this report.
The pathologist that signed off on this report is in fact a dermapathologist. He states that his suspicion is synchronous primaries but also that local epidermotropic metastasis can be a clinical correlation. I'm baffled that both the dermatologist and the surgeon either ignored or failed to give the proper attention to this alternative – especially since it's clearly spelled out in the report.
Thank you again for your detailed and thorough response. You just made me take a new path on this and I can't possibly thank you enough for it. I have immense gratitude.
-
- August 27, 2016 at 12:11 am
Hi,
Thank you for your invaluable input. I picked up the report and read the pathology comment and the word "metastasis" got me worried. Neither the dermatologist nor the surgeon mentioned it or in any way thoroughly discussed the report with me. I'm an audiologist and the inquisitive mind of someone working in health care 8 hrs out of the day made me aware of how one needs to be thorough with anything health related, especially with something of this magnitude.
I Will set up an appointment with a true melanoma specialist, of whom there's 3 in my state, fortunately.
As for your question on the "absence of the deep margin" – I reported the report on here verbatim. I also questioned if "absent" meant there were no margins left or there were none because of the initial shaving for biopsi (I assume none left because this was in regards to the thinnest melanoma. 0.15 mm). However, the report also stated: lymphovascular invasion: absent – which being that they just had a sample of the mole I'm not sure how they can conclude lack of lymphovascular invasion- which makes me think that by "absent" in this report they refer to lack of sample rather than lack of the invasion. So, in short I'm not sure what they mean by absent in this report.
The pathologist that signed off on this report is in fact a dermapathologist. He states that his suspicion is synchronous primaries but also that local epidermotropic metastasis can be a clinical correlation. I'm baffled that both the dermatologist and the surgeon either ignored or failed to give the proper attention to this alternative – especially since it's clearly spelled out in the report.
Thank you again for your detailed and thorough response. You just made me take a new path on this and I can't possibly thank you enough for it. I have immense gratitude.
-
